Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

Pokémon Sun and Moon are now available! Read our extensive Sun and Moon review at Daily!

The finale of the fourth annual Favorite Pokémon Tournament is underway in Pokémon General!View the poll and vote for as many Pokémon as you'd like. Voting is only open until the 5th of December though, so don't wait to make your picks!

Greetings all! For the past couple of years PC has remained largely static in terms of how community-wide votes/ polls are conducted in the Emulation section. Very few changes have been made to how they are run due to not seeing a need for change, or even laziness when it comes to deciding on possible steps forward. The annual PC tradition of complaining about the winner is unlikely to go away as a result, but hopefully a shake-up of the voting process could help to alleviate some of the problems that this system is being blamed for.

The goal of this thread is to gauge the community's opinions on how future competitions should be run and what alterations (if any) could be applied as fairly as possible.

Some possible changes that have been raised by members so far include:

Removing the public vote entirely and leaving it up to just a handful of veterans

By all means, these are not the only ideas up for debate - They're just to get the ball rolling. What we really want to hear is what you want changed. This may turn out to be an massive overhaul of what has been a pretty copy+paste system so if you would like to be heard, now is the time to speak up!

We would mainly like to hear from people who have experienced one, two or even more Hack of the Year/ other large community competitions, but if you have an idea to improve future contests then don't hesitate to chime in!

Personally, I would welcome the most changes you listed there. I don´t like it when e.g. people with 1 post apart from the last suggestion. Excluding "newbies" might be a good idea but if only a selected number was allowed to vote...I dunno, doesn´t seem right here

__________________

Professional Alpha Dragon Slayer & the Greatest in the Universe(at least in XenoVerse)

Check out my hack "Pokemon Rocket Strike" http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=319844How to patch a rom:
1.Download the patch. If it is in a .zip file then use a free tool named WinRar to unzip the file.
2.Use Google to find the rom you need.
3.PATCH THAT THING AND LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!

I agree with all of the points listed apart from the last one, because even if it was done fairly if the Noobhack of the Year doesn't get voted there will be another crapstorm and people will say "ETS RIGED!"

Preventing voters from voting for the same hack more than a certain number of times on a single ballot (over multiple categories) no. Because sometimes a hack really does the have best mapping and scripting or whatever.

Preventing team members (not just the owner) from voting for a hack yes

Having a weighted score distribution of some kind yes

Making it so only hacks that have a public beta can be voted for yes

Having a dozen or so pre-selected hacks up for category nomination in the first round rather than every hack on the forum being eligible yes

Adding a nomination round where people nominate hacks which are then check up against qualification criteria before moving to a public voting round yes

Removing the public vote entirely and leaving it up to just a handful of veterans! no, that ruins the whole point of the contest I think. The public vote might suck (in fact it always sucks) but I like that everyone gets a say. HotY should reflect what the average people like, even if anyone with half a brain knows it's terrible.

I've been here for 2-3 HOTY (Sienna(Kind-of), Life of Guardians, and Light Platinum) I also remember doing I think a few HOTM's too. There really needs to be a change in the voting system and I'm glad it's starting to change now. I like alot of these but I do have problems with two of them.

Quote:

Preventing voters from voting for the same hack more than a certain number of times on a single ballot (over multiple categories)

I kind-of like this because competitions won't be clogged with newbies and band-waggoners that will vote for a single hack for everything just because of the popularity, so in a way, this is a good idea. But, like Hinkage said, some hacks do deserve more than one category to some voters. It's an okay idea, but it would be very hard to execute it so everyone will be happy.

Quote:

Removing the public vote entirely and leaving it up to just a handful of veterans

I approve of this because I am a veteran now and I can have more say than other people.
Mwahahahahaha!
In all honesty, like Spherical Ice said, noobs will say it's rigged just because the "Noob Hack" didn't win. Also, like Hinkage said, it would ruin the contest. I kind-of like this because the votes wouldn't be clogged with the posts from noobs and band-waggoners, but again, not everyone would be happy about everything and it might make matters worse.

Sideshow showcase should definitely be available for gameplay. Heck, here on PC it's definitely arguable that Sideshows like Yet Another Fire Red Hack or Touhoumon Emerald 1.82 are far and above what you'd get out of your normal Hack Showcase offering in actual gameplay. HOWEVER, if ballots aren't secret along with this things can turn out rather bad. Graphics should not have Sideshow included as for the most part they either are using graphics from other sources or barely even change them at all. Scripts however, may be interesting as many still do quite a bit of work "under the hood" so to speak.

I would also like to propose a limit for hacks based on how long it's been since they have been worked on. This clears out the people who are going to automatically vote for something annually without even doing so much as looking at the other offerings, while giving newer hacks people don't necessarily try because they're not as popular a chance. About a year old or so only should suffice. I hear the argument about the fact that there aren't enough to facilitate this, but I believe we have plenty to work with.

Veterans only sounds silly for such a large event, you'd get rage spilling over everywhere.

I think the Hack of the Year committee should solely exist of previous winners.

you mean consist? but anyway, that's not why I'm here.

Disregarding the fact that I'm a nobody and merely just a passersby in the hacking scene, I should still be allowed to give my two cents, right? (I'll be borrowing the word "committee" from you Manipulation, thanks)

Agree. In fact, these should be "pinned down". They'll do more good than harm. As for #4... as long as you're involving #1 (qualification criteria part) in the quote BELOW, then sure. With all due respect to the ones who made them, I personally don't think all hacks with public betas are automatically eligible. For #5, I'm going with Projectwolfie's opinion.

Quote:

Adding a nomination round where people nominate hacks which are then check up against qualification criteria before moving to a public voting round

Having a dozen or so pre-selected hacks up for category nomination in the first round rather than every hack on the forum being eligible

1) Good idea. Additionally, a poll could be handy in this case just so you could apply to what's mentioned in #2 (quoted above).
2) Yup. this is probably the best way to "downsize" such a huge selection. A good combo with #1.

Preventing voters from voting for the same hack more than a certain number of times on a single ballot (over multiple categories)

Removing the public vote entirely and leaving it up to just a handful of veterans

Hmm... there may be other ways you could manage an "intelligent" election without having to undergo these (pardon the language, can't think of another word) strict boundaries.

But as for #1, 1 month requirement (prior to the election), at least 30 posts, and no more than 3-5(?) infraction points (or w/e it was called), should be fair enough to keep away from those "spambots". If you could track their recent activity, that would help too, instead of checking how much posts they've had (since they could've made all those alt accounts years ago). Now...

IMO, there should be at least two phases for the whole election process.

- Phase 1 -

Spoiler:

Nomination. Pretty much what I've commented on the 2nd quote. People nominate, the committee decides whether it's a valid nominee.

Nomination (members) -> Elimination (committee).

- Phase 2 -

Spoiler:

Election. Now this is where things get colorful and messy. There will be votes here and there, coming from reliable and unreliable sources alike. How do we sort out those "n00b votes" and "acceptable votes"?

Let the voter give brief reviews/comments for their chosen hacks to explain why they gave their votes (and scores) to that hack under that criteria. "Why?", you may ask. To ensure that they've actually played or seen that game. This also gives everyone a chance to vote at the same time, not just veterans. Truth is, even the so-called "veterans" may have biases, not just the "n00bs". Let's not deny that fact. No offense to anyone, don't misunderstand, we all just want everyone to get their fair shot, don't we?

While I also must admit that even this system is not 100% foolproof, it still allows us to dispatch a good number of those votes that are usually just submitted to mess and rig with the system.

Just to point it out, this process will be no different than phase 1:
Vote (members) -> Elimination (committee)

But anyway, as for scoring. Members should be allowed to "score" for as much hacks as they want, provided that their vote is considered/accepted as "valid". Scoring will be done in a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest. And at the end of Phase 2, comes the tallying of votes. Since it's a scoring system, there should be a formula, such as:

Spoiler:

Code:

Total score
----------------
Total # of voters
So now, for example, 4 different people voted for X hack (mapping) with the following scores: 8 / 7 / 7 / 6
8+7+7+6
--------
4
Therefore, X hack receives an average of 7 (mapping)

I know it's probably not the best idea, though, because its a much, much, more tedious thing to do (for the committee/tallymen/syndicates) than the standard voting process. Feel free to critique/argue/agree/comment/flavor it up. This is a discussion thread, no?

__________________

You could easily teach yourself if you observe the world closely." - EliseSquish, squish, squish. Goes the bug under your foot.Squish, squish, squish. I'm telling you not to look.

Disregarding the fact that I'm a nobody and merely just a passersby in the hacking scene, I should still be allowed to give my two cents, right? (I'll be borrowing the word "committee" from you Manipulation, thanks)
Agree. In fact, these should be "pinned down". They'll do more good than harm. As for #4... as long as you're involving #1 (qualification criteria part) in the quote BELOW, then sure. With all due respect to the ones who made them, I personally don't think all hacks with public betas are automatically eligible. For #5, I'm going with Projectwolfie's opinion.
1) Good idea. Additionally, a poll could be handy in this case just so you could apply to what's mentioned in #2 (quoted above).
2) Yup. this is probably the best way to "downsize" such a huge selection. A good combo with #1.

The nomination phase should be done this way, in this order, imo.

Hmm... there may be other ways you could manage an "intelligent" election without having to undergo these (pardon the language, can't think of another word) strict boundaries.

But as for #1, 1 month requirement (prior to the election), at least 30 posts, and no more than 3-5(?) infraction points (or w/e it was called), should be fair enough to keep away from those "spambots". If you could track their recent activity, that would help too, instead of checking how much posts they've had (since they could've made all those alt accounts years ago). Now...

IMO, there should be at least two phases for the whole election process.

- Phase 1 -

Spoiler:

Nomination. Pretty much what I've commented on the 2nd quote. People nominate, the committee decides whether it's a valid nominee.

Nomination (members) -> Elimination (committee).

- Phase 2 -

Spoiler:

Election. Now this is where things get colorful and messy. There will be votes here and there, coming from reliable and unreliable sources alike. How do we sort out those "n00b votes" and "acceptable votes"?

Let the voter give brief reviews/comments for their chosen hacks to explain why they gave their votes (and scores) to that hack under that criteria. "Why?", you may ask. To ensure that they've actually played or seen that game. This also gives everyone a chance to vote at the same time, not just veterans. Truth is, even the so-called "veterans" may have biases, not just the "n00bs". Let's not deny that fact. No offense to anyone, don't misunderstand, we all just want everyone to get their fair shot, don't we?

While I also must admit that even this system is not 100% foolproof, it still allows us to dispatch a good number of those votes that are usually just submitted to mess and rig with the system.

Just to point it out, this process will be no different than phase 1:
Vote (members) -> Elimination (committee)

But anyway, as for scoring. Members should be allowed to "score" for as much hacks as they want, provided that their vote is considered/accepted as "valid". Scoring will be done in a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest. And at the end of Phase 2, comes the tallying of votes. Since it's a scoring system, there should be a formula, such as:

Spoiler:

Code:

Total score
----------------
Total # of voters
So now, for example, 4 different people voted for X hack (mapping) with the following scores: 8 / 7 / 7 / 6
8+7+7+6
--------
4
Therefore, X hack receives an average of 7 (mapping)

I know it's probably not the best idea, though, because its a much, much, more tedious thing to do (for the committee/tallymen/syndicates) than the standard voting process. Feel free to critique/argue/agree/comment/flavor it up. This is a discussion thread, no?

I agree with your suggestion, this would be a good and fair system for the best hack election.

Also I suggest an award for the hack with least number of bugs/glitches in the public beta. This needs a lot of analysis though. The hack owner should list the bugs/glitches in the first post so that it can be evaluated, even that should be considered for the Hack of the Year award too.

Another thing, to concentrate only on the Hack of the Year election the Hack of the Month award should be removed.

Help

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.